Sony Addresses PS2 in PS3 Rumour

Gamasutra addresses the rumour floating around saying that every PlayStation 3 will have PS2 hardware included. This is apparently a fast and loose solution to Backwards Compatibility. Sony says 'that news ... is just speculation'. From the article: "According to the report, the article indicates that Sony is looking to this as a temporary solution, and plans to remove the chip from future hardware PlayStation 3 models, once it is able to include a functional PlayStation 2 emulator in its place. Such a redesign would, if true, presumably drive down the console's lofty price."

It won't drive down the price to consumers...

[SoCalChris]

Sony will just lose less on each console sold once they get the full emulation worked out.

When Sony is already losing a good amount on each console, they sure won't be passing those savings on to consumers.

Its part true

[MikeBabcock]

I was reading an interview recently with a Sony employee discussing that they need to include some of the PS2's hardware in the PS3 to handle strange timing issues for things that really shouldn't be done with a PS2 but are done by programmers nonetheless. That said, the majority of the PS2's work can be emulated with a cell processor, he claimed.

This is not equivalent to including an entire PS2 on a chip (but at $700, they could almost afford to).

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit

[theStorminMormon]

1. I don't own an xbox, but I loved Halo so much I bought it (one and 2) to play on my roomie's xbox (and I figured I'd have my own one day). Now I've moved out of there (married with a house now) and so backwards compatibility on the xbox360 was a must. I don't want to have to buy both. Also, my wife tolerates a game-cube and an xbox360 but would probably be annoyed if there was a third console lurking about.

2. Another thing to realize is that consoles wear out. If you'be had an xbox since the eary days (and play a lot) chances are it's lifespan may be coming to an end. This machines are not always handled gently. In which case the new system serves not only as a new system, but ALSO a replacement model for the old system.

-stormin

Re:Just one question...

[VendingMenace]

consider this...

I do not own a PS2. Let us assume that I buy a PS3 sometime down the road. Now, I might just wish to play some PS2 games that I enjoyed playing at me friends house, but that I never owned. Backwards compatability allows me to do that.

I think that is a good reason.

I know LOTS of people that never had a PSone, but now own lots of PSone games, becuase they bought a PS2 and could play them on it. I mean seriously, if you never owned a PSone, but have a PS2, there is absolutlely NO reason why you should not have at least Castlevania: symphony of the night and Super puzzle fighter. Granted, there are other games, but those two in particular are must-haves.

Hopefully that answers your question :)

PS4 To Include PS3 Hardware?

[The_Real_Quaid]

This is no surprise, the PS2 architecture is wild enough on its own, but then compared to PS3 the architectures are worlds apart. It's going to be a tricky task to emulate PS2 in software mode. M$ is having a similar problem with Xbox being so different from X360, and PS2 -> PS3 is much more complicated.

They will probably need to keep PS2 hardware in there forever. Then it makes me wonder, if PS4 has a radically different architecture from PS3, will they need to keep PS3 hardware inside, and how will that affect costs? PS3 is already expensive, how much will PS4 cost, $1200?

It looks like Wii has the best solution, with it being a scaled up GameCube architecture.

Sony expects PS3 to last 10 years, but you know M$ and Nintendo will want to push their next consoles out around 2010. I expect this generation will last 4 years, not 5 like the previous generations. Technology is advancing faster than ever before, and market diversification leads to quicker updates.

Re:Here's An Idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually what frustrates me the most about the PS3's $600 price point; in my experience both the Playstation and PS2 were crappy pieces of hardware that had life-spans in the 18-24 month range (with several dying after a year), of all the PS2 owners I know (around 15 people give or take a couple) and I can't think of any who haven't replaced their PS2 at least once. I recognize that this is not statistically significant, but (at least based on people's impressions online) may not be all that unusual.

The thing that annoys me with the price is whether you want to be the guy who spends $600 on the PS3 and then has to replace it in 6-12 months because of a Disc-Read error? Seriously, at $600 I want a 2-5 year waranty on all manufacturing defects not the shitty 3 months that Sony normally gives.

Re:Here's An Idea!

[twistedsymphony]

too true... I'm on my 2nd PS2. I know about 15 or so people with them and not a one of them is still on their first. Some of the more heavy players have even had to replace it 2 or 3 times. The worst part is that I barely even play mine... I own about 5 games total, and in general once I finish a game I don't ever play it again (at least none of my PS2 games). I don't even play DVDs on it yet the thing still died and when the ONE game I was waiting for came out I had to buy a new one... I also have a launch N64, a near launch Dreamcast, a near launch Xbox 1, a near launch Gamecube, and a launch Xbox 360 and NONE of them have given me any grief..
... My PS1 was replaced 3 times. I also had a Sony Trinitron Monitor that died completely after 6 months. $500-$600 is bad enough but without a lifetime guarantee that's a pretty big pill to swallow with the Sony experiences I've had.

Didn't they get the PS2 down to a single chip?

[arthurh3535]

I could have sworn that they had the PS2 down to a single chip quite a ways back (and the PS1 as a section on that chip.)
 
So this might be a non-news issues.